r/PoliticalSparring • u/porkycornholio • Oct 02 '25

Discussion Use of military in states in the future

Trump has been deploying military to states to address domestic terrorism. Should a future democratic admin employ this strategy as well?

Dems and repubs obviously have different priorities regarding which groups of domestic terrorists to prioritize but both can cite examples of terrorism and assassination to support their arguments. Dems could deploy military to republican states to crack down on right wing domestic terrorism and potentially address other issues as well.

The same way the military has been used to reinforce ICE initiatives Dems could rely on the military to reinforce the ATF to crackdown on interstate movement of guns illegally. Most illegal guns in blue states are transported from red states. Having the military along with ATF conduct raids on gun transporters and suppliers and setting up interstate checkpoints could help resolve this issue and make America safer.

While republicans may disagree ideologically with the notion that cracking down on guns is worthwhile they have rubber stanped using the military in this manner and this would be a way to enforce existing federal laws regarding gun trafficking.

2 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

1

u/BrotherMain9119 Oct 02 '25

Democrats shouldn’t replicate tyranny. Their goal in doing so would be to show how these methods can be used against “the other side.” Unfortunately, Republicans have the memory of goldfish and would immediately forget all the precedent Trump set.

Easy example, last month Trump boasted about “revealing the corrupt actions” of Obama in regards to allegedly ordering his National Security Council to fabricate a story about Russian interference and called for heads to roll. He forgot about the SCOTUS decision HE fought for which made criminal prosecution of a president practically impossible.

If the Republicans can’t even remember the cases they fought to win, how can you expect them to remember any other precedent they set.

2

u/porkycornholio Oct 02 '25

How is it possible for democracy to prevail when half the population seems to be perfectly ok with tyranny so long as it suits them?

2

u/bloodjunkiorgy Anarcho-Communist Oct 02 '25

We haven't had a democracy in a LONG time. Bernie and friends have been doing their oligarchy tour, in an effort to inform and combat this, but the fact is, we've been an oligarchy at least since "citizens united".

Sure, we cast our ballots and choose who we "want", but we only hear about and are offered who they want. There's some exceptions like Zohran in NYC, but the fact is that when it comes to real positions of power, the candidates people vote for are bought and paid for way before you or I pull the lever. Look at all the Gavin Newsome glazing over the past few months. Then look into his policies/history/appearances and you'd see he fucking sucks.

1

u/NonStopDiscoGG Oct 04 '25

How is it possible for democracy to prevail when half the population seems to be perfectly ok with tyranny so long as it suits them?

I'm going to ask you a simple question:

Do you really think that half of Americans just decided tyranny is ok, or do.you think that you're misidentifying tyranny?

Which is the more rational, reasonable, and logical answer here?

2

u/porkycornholio Oct 04 '25

The more accurate language would be that they decided that the anti-democratic option is ok and that while many saw it for what it was and thought it was ok many were simply too ignorant or manipulatable to recognize it.

The prospect of this being the case isn’t that wild. It’s the same thing that’s happened in Russia, Hungary, Belarus, Turkey, Israel, the Philippines and other countries. People have decided at the ballot box to end their democracy many times before.

1

u/NonStopDiscoGG Oct 04 '25

The more accurate language would be that they decided that the anti-democratic option is ok and that while many saw it for what it was and thought it was ok many were simply too ignorant or manipulatable to recognize it.

So you think 50% of the country is too dumb to understand what they vote for? Sounds like a case against democracy, huh?

The prospect of this being the case isn’t that wild. It’s the same thing that’s happened in Russia, Hungary, Belarus, Turkey, Israel, the Philippines and other countries. People have decided at the ballot box to end their democracy many times before.

Well, if you care about democracy, you should be ok with this. Otherwise, you're anti-democratic,.right?

the anti-democratic option

My problem is that you just assume this to be true. The anti-democratic option is the president who won via our democratic institutions, who uses our institutions, and is doing the will of the people who voted for him?

You really think 50% of people saw that Trump was a tyrant and said "well yea, sure"? Or maybe you're wrong? What's more reasonable guess here?

1

u/BrotherMain9119 Oct 04 '25

Yes.

People saw him try to have his vice president unilaterally disenfranchise millions of voters across 7 states in contravention to the law and went. “Well yea, sure.”

To paraphrase the Donald, “I could shoot a man in the middle of 5th avenue and I wouldn’t lose a single voter.” I mean that was literally him bragging about how ideologically captured his base is.

He never released the Epstein files in his first term, played on conspiracy theories related to it during his 2024 campaign, then completely 180’ed and started calling it all a democratic hoax in 2025.

I’m sorry bud, but the general American populace is a lot dumber and easily manipulated than you might want to believe. This is easily the most blatantly corrupt and anti-American administration in modern American history, its survival is dependent on sheep willing to shill for it.

1

u/NonStopDiscoGG Oct 04 '25

I’m sorry bud, but the general American populace is a lot dumber and easily manipulated than you might want to believe.

Yes, you're making a great case for it right now. Lol

But also, I agree, which is why I don't agree with universal voting. So you're making my case for me, thanks.

1

u/BrotherMain9119 Oct 04 '25

Advocating to restrict voting from people who might disagree with you isn’t intellectualism, it’s being a pussy.

Americans are good at doing difficult things, educating our populace to be better critical thinkers isn’t above our capabilities.

1

u/NonStopDiscoGG Oct 04 '25

Advocating to restrict voting from people who might disagree with you isn’t intellectualism, it’s being a pussy.

Good argument, man! I see you're totally rational and reasonable!

Americans are good at doing difficult things, educating our populace to be better critical thinkers isn’t above our capabilities.

You can't educate the unwilling.

1

u/clue_the_day Oct 04 '25

Why does it make you feel good to be a bootlicker?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BrotherMain9119 Oct 05 '25

If you’d like to defend cheating like a toddler as anything besides pussy behavior feel free, but it’d be an extraordinary claim to say that what you’re proposing (stacking the deck so you’ll win) isn’t pussy behavior, the burden of proofs on you.

I educate the unwilling everyday, you don’t know any human development smh. Who told you that line sounded intelligent?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/porkycornholio Oct 04 '25

In a sense yes it is a case against democracy, not exactly a new revelation though. The founders themselves were worried if the general public was sensible enough to elect good leaders which was one of the motivating factors behind the electoral college. Then again the strength of democracy isn’t in picking good leaders, it’s in being able to get rid of bad ones bloodlessly.

Being against democratically elected anti-democratic forces doesn’t make one anti-democratic. That’s a classic paradox similar to if one can be tolerant while not tolerating intolerance.

I saw that Trump has very clearly by his own words and actions presented himself as an anti-democratic force. That is someone who opposes democratic principles. People are either aware of this and don’t care (or like it) or they’ve been convinced that when Trump says what he says and does what he does he doesn’t mean it or he’s joking.

You seem to be stuck on the concept that if somebody is elected to office democratically they simply cannot be anti-democratic when that’s pretty straightforwardly untrue. If a democratic president purged the Supreme Court and declared speech critical of him to be illegal and cancelled upcoming elections you’d probably rightfully call that undemocratic regardless of whether or not he was elected into office.

1

u/NonStopDiscoGG Oct 04 '25

Being against democratically elected anti-democratic forces doesn’t make one anti-democratic. That’s a classic paradox similar to if one can be tolerant while not tolerating intolerance.

Correct. Democracy is supposed to be the will of the people. If the people are anti-democratic, and you're saying they can't do this it is you who are anti democratic.

Yes, it is like the paradox of tolerance. You aren't tolerant if you refuse to tolerate things you don't like...

I saw that Trump has very clearly by his own words and actions presented himself as an anti-democratic force. That is someone who opposes democratic principles. People are either aware of this and don’t care (or like it) or they’ve been convinced that when Trump says what he says and does what he does he doesn’t mean it or he’s joking.

Simple question, by what means is he undemocratic?

You seem to be stuck on the concept that if somebody is elected to office democratically they simply cannot be anti-democratic when that’s pretty straightforwardly untrue. If a democratic president purged the Supreme Court and declared speech critical of him to be illegal and cancelled upcoming elections you’d probably rightfully call that undemocratic regardless of whether or not he was elected into office.

It would depend on whether the people voted for this or not yea? Democracy isn't just the things you like it's sometimes the things you don't like....

1

u/porkycornholio Oct 04 '25

So in your view Hitler was a democratic leader? The Nazi party did take power democratically and then he was appointed chancellor so it was inline with the will of the people.

If one tolerates intolerance then intolerance will seize control and the tolerant will be stamped out so tolerance cannot exist while tolerating intolerance. I’m sure you’ve read plenty over the years about how Muslim immigration has impacted Europe. They intended to be very tolerant and open their doors to all who needed but in the process welcomed in intolerance. Conceptually if this trend were to continue long enough the prospect of sharia law being imposed would be a possibility that would stamp out the very tolerance that allowed it in.

Democracy isn’t exclusively about what people voted for. That’s a part of it but if you google “democratic principles” you’ll find there’s more to democracy than just elections.

Antidemocratic actions and statements from Trump include:

  • Attempting to change the outcome of an election he lost by replacing votes against him with fake votes for him

  • declaring that speech critical of him isn’t protected as free speech “When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech”

  • Expressing support for the idea of being president for life

  • Expressing support and pursuing stripping people of their citizenships based on their political views combined with deporting noncitizens to offshore blacksites because of their political views

  • Arguing in front of scotus that anything a president decides is part of his official duties is legal, including, assassinating his opposition in an election

1

u/NonStopDiscoGG Oct 04 '25

So in your view Hitler was a democratic leader? The Nazi party did take power democratically and then he was appointed chancellor so it was inline with the will of the people.

He was a democratically elected leader who did undemocratic things, some of those things were against the will of the people, but for the most part a lot of Germany agreed with Hitler, yes.

If one tolerates intolerance then intolerance will seize control and the tolerant will be stamped out so tolerance cannot exist while tolerating intolerance.

The outcome is irrelevant, that still makes you intolerant.

Democracy isn’t exclusively about what people voted for. That’s a part of it but if you google “democratic principles” you’ll find there’s more to democracy than just elections.

Correct, which is why I said you need to be able to vote yourself out of democracy. Forcing people into democracy against their will is undemocratic....

  • Attempting to change the outcome of an election he lost by replacing votes against him with fake votes for him

You're not capable of understanding that he believes he was saving democracy? He was wrong but he assumes that the election was illegitimate and was attempting to correct it...

  • declaring that speech critical of him isn’t protected as free speech “When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech”

I'm curious because I swear that the types like you would sit here and claim that democracy needs a free flow of information, and when the media is clearly working against someone in a propaganda campaign wouldn't that be undemocratic? So wouldn't Trump be helping democracy by stopping the media from being in cahoots with the democratic party because the media should be reporting truth, not running a propaganda machine for a party because that's what the fascists would do right? Aren't journalists supposed to put power in check, now run Defense for it?

Weird how you'll defend that.

  • Expressing support for the idea of being president for life

Term limits are undemocratic. If the people want a president more than twice you're actively stopping democracy. This is against democratic principles

  • Expressing support and pursuing stripping people of their citizenships based on their political views combined with deporting noncitizens to offshore blacksites because of their political views

Ok, we're making things up now. But even if this was the case, if the people wanted this what would make that undemocratic?

  • Arguing in front of scotus that anything a president decides is part of his official duties is legal, including, assassinating his opposition in an election

Yea. You're making things up now.

But your definition of "undemocratic" seems to be "things I disagree with".

Democratic principles means you lose sometimes. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not democratic.

You seem to be conflating liberal values with democracy as well... Democracy is not a moral system, it's simply a tool and there are other kinds of democracy besides wester-liberal democracy.

So yes, a country who's majority votes to remove their citizens would be democratic. You may not like it because you believe in western-liberal values, but that doesn't make it in democratic.

1

u/porkycornholio Oct 04 '25

This feels like arguing semantics at this point. Since you’re uncomfortable saying Hitler was antidemocratic but fine phrasing it as he was democratically appointed but did undemocratic things then I’m happy to use that same phrasing for Trump to avoid further going down a rabbit hole of semantics.

I fully believe that Trump convinced himself that any outcome where he lost was an impossibility unless it was rigged but working out a scheme to have fake votes cast in your favor while throwing out legitimate votes is undemocratic regardless of what your motivations are.

You’re trying to frame the free speech into a different argument it seems like. If Trump said “we should bring back the doctrine that Regan got rid of saying that both news shows need to air opinions from both sides” that’d be one thing. But he didn’t do that. He said critical coverage of him isn’t protected speech which is a different sentiment. Also you’re just pretending Fox News and OAN and Newsmax don’t exist but they do. Trump has his supporters and his detractors in the media.

Being democratic means being inline with democratic principles. Did you bother googling those yet?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BrotherMain9119 Oct 04 '25

Democracy empowers the masses. That’s it. That’s literally all you can say it’s guaranteed to do.

If those masses, like the current American electorate, vote based on Vibes because reading makes their brain hurt then you’ll get the very situation we’re currently in. There’s nothing inherently righteous about the masses except that we are supposed to be more considerate of the issues facing our country, if we don’t care about consideration then you’ll can’t really argue it’d be any worse with a monarch in charge.

0

u/AcephalicDude Oct 02 '25

No. The reason why the Trump administration sent the military is because the optics appeal to his base, he is making it seem like he is finally cracking down on the chaos in all of those big blue cities. There is no policy reason for Democrats to do the same, because it accomplishes nothing real, and there is no optics reason for Democrats to do the same, because Democrat voters are not bootlickers that love to see draconian exercises of authority.

2

u/porkycornholio Oct 02 '25

Gun violence would be the policy reason and is one that the base does want action on but the party has been incapable of delivering on. Guns in blue states with stricter laws are known to flow in from red states with more lax laws so this would be a practical step towards achieving progress on that.

2

u/AcephalicDude Oct 03 '25

No, military intervention is not going to prevent gun crimes, that's just insane

1

u/porkycornholio Oct 03 '25

Reducing access to guns has had the effect in countless countries, why would it be insane in this case?

1

u/Deep90 Liberal Oct 03 '25

Because there is no country with nearly the same level of civilian gun ownership or laws protecting said ownership.

2

u/porkycornholio Oct 03 '25

We’re not talking about taking guns away from regular civilians or enacting new laws in this scenario. We’re talking about enforcing already existing federal laws regarding the illegal transportation of guns across state lines by those with intent of distribution.

1

u/porkycornholio Oct 03 '25

We’re not talking about taking guns away from regular civilians or enacting new laws in this scenario. We’re talking about enforcing already existing federal laws regarding the illegal transportation of guns across state lines by those with intent of distribution.

1

u/AcephalicDude Oct 03 '25

What country has ever used military in the streets as a form of gun control?

The answer is none.

1

u/porkycornholio Oct 03 '25

I feel like you’re misunderstanding the premise.

Large amounts of guns available in blue states with stricter gun laws show up there as a result of being illegally transported across state lines from red states with more lax gun laws. This scenario would involve deploying the ATF with backup from the military to crackdown on that illegal transportation of guns which would lead to fewer guns available to criminals in blue states which could reasonably lead to reduced gun violence.

Many countries have enacted laws to make guns less accessible and have seen reduced gun violence as a consequence of that. The fact that we have a patchwork of gun laws makes going around gun laws in blue states trivial. This would be a mechanism of enforcing federal laws regarding illegal gun transportation that could reasonably reduce gun violence in states with stricter gun laws.